HowardForums is a discussion board dedicated to mobile phones with over 1,000,000 members and growing!

For your convenience HowardForums is divided into 7 main sections; marketplace, phone manufacturers, carriers, smartphones/PDAs, general phone discussion, buy sell trade and general discussions. Just scroll down to see them!

Only registered members may post questions, contact other members or search our database of over 8 million posts. Why don't you join us today!

“The Internet wasn’t meant to be metered in bits and bytes, so it’s insane that wireless companies are still making you buy it this way. The rate plan is dead — it’s a fossil from a time when wireless was metered by every call or text.” John Legere 1/5/2017

Some of the coolest places are in small towns out in the middle of nowhereland, and driving on back roads through America is really fun.

I won't fault those who find entertainment in doing such things. But I keep myself entertained just fine in more populated areas.

Customer count is important, as the costs of running a network are relatively fixed, with a small amount of marginal costs for upgrades with more customers. So more customers equals more profit.

Costs of customer acquisition can be quite expensive. Especially in the cellular business where people are often locked in to device payment plans. T-Mobile has spent a boatload of money paying for ETF's and also paying off devices if they'll switch. They've gained customers, but they still haven't made a dent on catching up to Verizon and AT&T numbers.

It not as simple as build out more coverage and they will come. It's a big commitment for people to switch carriers and even if coverage on another carrier might work for them, people are creatures of habit and they're not easily willing to try out another carrier.

However, as I just posted in another thread, the point is irrelevant now that the T-Mobile/Sprint deal is almost complete. The combined company will have a similar amount of customers to AT&T and Verizon.

Yet AT&T and Verizon pour literally billions of dollars into covering all sorts of off the beaten path places. What makes no sense for T-Mobile is that they should either do it right or not do it (and just roam). The cost to put up a cell site, or lease space on an existing site, install equipment, backhaul, etc, is astronomical, and the additional cost to throw up B2 and B4 and 3 more panels while they are there is relatively minimal in comparison.

They don't need any B2 or B4 at this time. Look on the T-Mobile speed test page. People aren't having many issues with the B12 coverage. That's because T-Mobile doesn't have a lot of demand for capacity in these areas. NotABiot tries makes up numbers about the "millions" that need coverage from T-Mobile in these outer areas and yet, on what low band only coverage they have currently, they don't have capacity issues. And that's because there's little demand for T-Mobile service in these areas despite what he states.

Even at $60/mo for two lines on T-Mobile vs. $130/mo plus taxes on AT&T, AT&T is worth the premium for the network.

If you need it for the places that you go to, that's great they provide the service. Then it is worth it.

Except for the more than 200M customers on AT&T and Verizon who mostly live in areas that T-Mobile covers just fine, but mostly want coverage when they travel places.

All 200M customers don't need coverage in areas that T-Mobile doesn't cover. I mentioned above some of the reasons that people stay locked into their carrier and a lot of them don't have anything to do with rural coverage. Many people just stay with AT&T and Verizon because it's what they've always used. Either way, T-Sprint will soon have over 100M customers to so it will all even out.

"NotABiot tries makes up numbers about the "millions" that need coverage from T-Mobile in these outer areas and yet..."

False. I refer to specific reports from tourists boards, etc on the number of annual visitors for states, counties, regions, and cities...I have evidence, in fact proof. Every single time I have made such a statement, it has been from researching the real totals. I have never "made up" any of these specific totals I have referred to. And you always counter with vague "no one goes there" references.... references which DO happen to be based on nothing at all. (The information on those who need coverage on highways is very interesting also, and proves how irrelevant it is to point out "population", say when you have a county with 2000 people in it but 200,000 drive through the county each year).

It is also a good time to point out that these places where millions go aren't "outer areas", "backwoods", or remote. If you want to discuss an outer area, talk about Northern Alaska. None of the places we have been discussing count as "backwoods".

For example. Traverse City, an urban area in NW lower Michigan, gets more than 3 million visitors each year:

This area only got T-Mobile coverage in the last year or two.... as part of the Band 12 expansion which greatly improved T-Mobile's network. So this is quite relevant in T-Mobile's recent efforts to get more profit and growth by covering Americans where they use their phones. That's evidence, proof. And if past patterns are correct, you will make up something about tiny little hollows in this specific area where no one goes, and how it is a waste and a charity to cover anyone in this area. Like when I pointed out, using specific counts, that the cell phone market in Wyoming draws from 11 million people, not the mere 600,000 sessile "population", you started fabricating stuff about where people go in Wyoming.

The Traverse City area population? About 100,000. But when you compare this to more than 3 million who need cell coverage here annually, the pattern holds about how irrelevant fixed population is when it comes to cell phone coverage needs: everywhere I look, the number of people needing cell coverage in an area is typically at least 10 times larger than the actual population. In the case of the Traverse City area, it's 30 times larger than the actual population.

And seeing as how you are fixated on "population" as the only thing that matters, I know a town in Wyoming with a coupe hundred population. As fixed population is the only thing that matters to you, you'd call it a charity to cover this town. You'd even use the meaningless "remote" word. Yet this particular place has almost 4 million visitors a year: more than 12,000 times as many people needing cell coverage in this place as actually has a home address here.

When discussing cell phone coverage needs of areas, look at who uses the phones in these areas, as opposed to just looking at the fixed population numbers. That's what T-Mobile is doing, and I'd trust them over any armchair CEO any day.

But enough of them do to make it profitable and worth T-Mobile's while to cover them. And time itself is rendering your argument pointless: because Americans (a total of 323 million people) want to use their phones in America, T-Mobile is rapidly expanding, and the "areas that T-Mobile" doesn't cover" are dwindling all the time.

And if only one-third of this 200M (total of AT&T and Verizon) decide to switch due to T-Mobile advantages, and T-Mobile's network is good enough for them (as opposed to the tiny 2014-era T-Mobile that only served the needs of a small proportion of Americans), T-Mobile would DOUBLE its total customers.

"Many people just stay with AT&T and Verizon because it's what they've always used."

And if anyone knows anything about Legere and T-Mobile, they are trying to poach every single one of these customers away from Verizon and T-Mobile.

"NotABiot tries makes up numbers about the "millions" that need coverage from T-Mobile in these outer areas and yet..."

False. I refer to specific reports from tourists boards, etc on the number of annual visitors for states, counties, regions, and cities...I have evidence, in fact proof.

As I stated, you never subtract out already covered areas. You lump in cities that are already covered and use that to justify coverage for the lowly populated areas. So your proof is really no proof at all.

For example. Traverse City, an urban area in NW lower Michigan, gets more than 3 million visitors each year:

This area only got T-Mobile coverage in the last year or two.... as part of the Band 71 expansion which greatly improved T-Mobile's network.

This is more nonsense as T-Mobile didn't roll out Band 71 in the last year or two. Furthermore, this city was and is already covered by roaming coverage. Coverage that GSMinCT says is legitimate for T-Mobile to use for coverage instead of what he terms a tissue thin network. But nonetheless, I'm sure you throw the "millions" from Traverse City into your faulty calculations about what T-Mobile doesn't cover. And how is T-Mobile's market share in Traverse City now that they've dropped all of this money covering this city? You are claiming that this coverage has added so much to T-Mobile's profit. I see one single T-Mobile store in a city that you claim has a population of 100,000. And the next nearest store is 150 miles away. What a joke. I sure hope that store has a line out the door to pay for all of those sites used to cover the city with, what was it, Band 71?

Like when I pointed out, using specific counts, that the cell phone market in Wyoming draws from 11 million people, not the mere 600,000 sessile "population", you started fabricating stuff about where people go in Wyoming.

Not fabricating anything at all. Again you never deduct from that 11 million people that go to the cities in Wyoming that are already covered from the areas where hardly anyone lives or goes and you try to extrapolate that same 11 million to those areas. It's all complete nonsense. Because if you used the true or real numbers your point would fall completely apart.

But enough of them do to make it profitable and worth T-Mobile's while to cover them.

It's not profitable at all. As GSMinCT said, "T-Mobile seems to be trying to get just enough crayon on to show some pink." It's just tissue-thin coverage that makes the nationwide map look good on the commercials. So they are spending as little as possible because it is a money loser.

And if only one-third of this 200M (total of AT&T and Verizon) decide to switch due to T-Mobile advantages, and T-Mobile's network is good enough for them (as opposed to the tiny 2014-era T-Mobile that only served the needs of a small proportion of Americans), T-Mobile would DOUBLE its total customers.

AT&T and Verizon aren't going to lose a third of their customers to T-Mobile. That's a complete fantasy on your part. Furthermore, T-Mobile's network couldn't handle gaining 1/3 of AT&T and Verizon's customers either. But keep dreaming the dream that that a third of the customers will depart because of the backwoods, dust bowls, hinterlands, wilderness, and dusty rocks that millions need to Snapchat from regularly.

My reference to Band 71 in Traverse City was an error. I fixed it to Band 12 BEFORE you responded.

I haven't made any "faulty calculations". But I did make that error. Seize on it! Band 71 !

"I see one single T-Mobile store in a city that you claim has a population of 100,000."

I present facts, and you make up stuff and doubt not from your own information, but out of "contrariness". The total population of the Traverse City area wasn't a "claim", it was something I looked up.

As for T-Mobile profits, it is part of their business plan. I don't pretend to be the armchair CEO that you do. All evidence is that Legere knows what he is doing, even if a contrary armchair CEO calls their efforts a "joke".

My reference to Band 71 in Traverse City was an error. I fixed it to Band 12 BEFORE you responded.

I haven't made any "faulty calculations". But I did make that error. Seize on it! Band 71 !

"I see one single T-Mobile store in a city that you claim has a population of 100,000."

I present facts, and you make up stuff and doubt not from your own information, but out of "contrariness". The total population of the Traverse City area wasn't a "claim", it was something I looked up.

As for T-Mobile profits, it is part of their business plan. I don't pretend to be the armchair CEO that you do. All evidence is that Legere knows what he is doing, even if a contrary armchair CEO calls their efforts a "joke".

"AT&T and Verizon aren't going to lose a third of their customers to T-Mobile."

If you asked Legere, I am sure he'd tell you that it is a conservative estimate. But it's par for the course: like someone in 2012 who would have looked at T-Mobile's relatively useless network then and said that the company would eventually surge way past Sprint. Total fantasy!!! Never happen!

"backwoods, dust bowls, hinterlands, wilderness, and dusty rocks"

The only such hinterland ever mentioned is Northern Alaska, and I brought it up, not you.

You just did again today. You stated, "Wyoming draws from 11 million people", but I did not see you deduct from that 11 million how many of those people are only going to the main populated cities and what little actually go the barren areas of the state.

I present facts, and you make up stuff and doubt not from your own information, but out of "contrariness". The total population of the Traverse City area wasn't a "claim", it was something I looked up.

Oh good, so then you confirm that a population of 100,000 exists that T-Mobile only decided to service with a single retail store. Wow, I bet the profits are just rolling in from all of that new business. Well worth the investment in all of that tissue-thin coverage.

"I'm sure you throw the "millions" from Traverse City into your faulty calculations about what T-Mobile doesn't cover"

Your quotation around "millions" implies that you doubt the numbers. I am offering you a chance to prove me wrong: find me numbers on actual annual tourist visits to the Traverse City area that is less than 1,000,000.

If you can't, you are just continuing a pattern of countering rock-hard statistics and facts with flat-earther style indignation. All because you resent, for some odd reason, the fact that T-Mobile has a much better network than they did a couple of years ago, and they are spending billions to make it even better.

"AT&T and Verizon aren't going to lose a third of their customers to T-Mobile."

If you asked Legere, I am sure he'd tell you that it is a conservative estimate.

No I doubt he would. Per the article I just posted today, Legere is grabbing all of Sprint's customers to add to his own. That's how he is going to get close to the number of customers that AT&T and Verizon have. He's not doing it by covering dusty roads or handing out more $600 Prepaid Visa cards to convince people to switch. Despite all the handouts, T-mobile is still way behind the subscriber counts of AT&T and Verizon. He knows the only way to catch them is to swallow up Sprint----which is exactly what he's doing.

But what to do want to do, spank anyone who ventures into Wyoming and goes some place where you think it is evil that they would need coverage?

No, but I wouldn't try to claim that 11 million people per year go into these desolate areas when they don't.

As for the "single retail store" question, this is the kind of thing T-Mobile has been doing for quite a while.

Do where for awhile? The cities I go to have far more T-Mobile stores than one to cover 100,000 people. Clearly it shows the low level of T-Mobile's commitment there. A further indicator is that they only covered the city by a 5x5 block of band 12 instead of using their B2 or B4 spectrum. They clearly don't anticipate generating much revenue there nor having much of a market share. As GSMinCT stated, such coverage is tissue thin. They realize how weak that coverage is so they still have left their roaming agreement in place as their coverage map shows.

You keep mentioning that. Do you honestly think that they won't keep trying to expand, and keep advertising to attract Verizon and AT&T customers after the merger???

No, I never said that. What I said was an idea that T-Mobile is going to take 1/3 of AT&T's and Verizon's customers is a complete fantasy. They've had quarter leading statistics for net adds and they still can't get anywhere close to AT&T and Verizon. A merger is the only way to catch up. If the merger isn't approved, they'll be a distant third for a long, long time.

I won't fault those who find entertainment in doing such things. But I keep myself entertained just fine in more populated areas.

You should get out and see the country more. It's a pretty neat place.

They don't need any B2 or B4 at this time. Look on the T-Mobile speed test page. People aren't having many issues with the B12 coverage. That's because T-Mobile doesn't have a lot of demand for capacity in these areas. NotABiot tries makes up numbers about the "millions" that need coverage from T-Mobile in these outer areas and yet, on what low band only coverage they have currently, they don't have capacity issues. And that's because there's little demand for T-Mobile service in these areas despite what he states.

AT&T had a single 5x5 of B5 LTE running in 2015 in parts of Northwest Lower, and it was slammed. It worked, but it was pretty dismal in the Speedtests. That was with some users on older phones on HSPA+, since they couldn't get B5 LTE, only B4/17, and the ability to kick people off LTE if needed, as they had a number of HSPA+ carriers running. And that was in 2015, and data usage has been increasing steadily every year since 2007. AT&T today has at least 3 carriers of LTE up, probably more, as they have a boatload of PCS spectrum. Running the entire network off of a single 5x5 in 2017 is not going to work well.

All 200M customers don't need coverage in areas that T-Mobile doesn't cover. I mentioned above some of the reasons that people stay locked into their carrier and a lot of them don't have anything to do with rural coverage. Many people just stay with AT&T and Verizon because it's what they've always used. Either way, T-Sprint will soon have over 100M customers to so it will all even out.

What I wonder is why anyone stays with Sprint. Total garbage. Anyone who doesn't run into no coverage areas on AT&T and Verizon doesn't travel around the US enough, and should get out of their basement and take a trip.

Originally Posted by NotABiot

The Traverse City area population? About 100,000. But when you compare this to more than 3 million who need cell coverage here annually, the pattern holds about how irrelevant fixed population is when it comes to cell phone coverage needs: everywhere I look, the number of people needing cell coverage in an area is typically at least 10 times larger than the actual population. In the case of the Traverse City area, it's 30 times larger than the actual population.

Yeah, that's a huge tourist area, people come from all over the place to go up there. The problem is that a single 5x5 is not going to work well in Traverse City or Charlevoix, or Petoskey, or anywhere else there are a decent number of people all trying to use their phones at once. It is smart of T-Mobile to cover these areas with LTE, but they should have done a full build-out to the same standards that Verizon uses (with the appropriate bands of course), with B2/4/12 3xCA. That would be a rock solid network assuming decent site spacing. Within TVC proper, which isn't that big, they probably should have built a PCS-spaced network, and put B12 on for building penetration only.

Originally Posted by jet1000

This is more nonsense as T-Mobile didn't roll out Band 71 in the last year or two. Furthermore, this city was and is already covered by roaming coverage. Coverage that GSMinCT says is legitimate for T-Mobile to use for coverage instead of what he terms a tissue thin network.

That's not what I said. I said that they should either do it right, or don't do it at all, but if they rely on roaming, then the data limits need to be MUCH higher, and they would have to foot the bill for that. Really, it would have made sense to build "splotchy" coverage, and bump up the roaming limit, but splotchy coverage, while sensible from a business perspective when roaming is available everywhere else, doesn't look good on a TV ad.

I see one single T-Mobile store in a city that you claim has a population of 100,000. And the next nearest store is 150 miles away. What a joke. I sure hope that store has a line out the door to pay for all of those sites used to cover the city with, what was it, Band 71?

They don't need a single store there. If they can cover the million or more people from the Detroit 'burbs who vacation up there for a week every year, that's 10x the potential customer base than there are people in TVC.

Not fabricating anything at all. Again you never deduct from that 11 million people that go to the cities in Wyoming that are already covered from the areas where hardly anyone lives or goes and you try to extrapolate that same 11 million to those areas. It's all complete nonsense. Because if you used the true or real numbers your point would fall completely apart.

Most of the people visiting are not just going to downtown Cheyenne and leaving, which is all that they had covered in 2014.

Originally Posted by NotABiot

The only such hinterland ever mentioned is Northern Alaska, and I brought it up, not you.

It appears that T-Mobile doesn't even have a network in Alaska at all, even in the cities. They have LTE from GCI, which is counted as native, and they also roam on AT&T with the usual restrictions. Apparently GCI is building out coverage on the haul road. AT&T should as well, that would be an easy way to put 15,000 square miles of LTE on the map, plus it would get a lot of usage from truckers on the route. T-Mobile doesn't have all of AT&T's coverage turned on for roaming in south-central, but they blow AT&T out of the water in southeast, as they have the GCI roaming agreement.

Originally Posted by NotABiot

You need to get out more, as your world view is really quite unrealistic:

LOL so true!

Originally Posted by jet1000

Do where for awhile? The cities I go to have far more T-Mobile stores than one to cover 100,000 people. Clearly it shows the low level of T-Mobile's commitment there. A further indicator is that they only covered the city by a 5x5 block of band 12 instead of using their B2 or B4 spectrum. They clearly don't anticipate generating much revenue there nor having much of a market share. As GSMinCT stated, such coverage is tissue thin. They realize how weak that coverage is so they still have left their roaming agreement in place as their coverage map shows.

The problem is, B12 carries pretty well, so in TVC, most T-Mobile users will be stuck on slow T-Mobile coverage that's overloaded.

Happy AT&T customer and addicted Speedtester in CT
AT&T Galaxy S7If you text while driving, you're an idiot. End of story.